Ex Parte REBESCHI et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 5, 201712878612 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/878,612 09/09/2010 Thomas J. REBESCHI 66756US002 5307 32692 7590 12/07/2017 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY PO BOX 33427 ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427 EXAMINER MORALES FERNANDE, BENJAMIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2624 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/07/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS J. REBESCHI, BILLY L. WEAVER, and BROCK A. HABLE Appeal 2017-006043 Application 12/878,612 Technology Center 2600 Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, AMBER L. HAGY, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4—20. Claim 3 has been cancelled.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify 3M Company as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. 2 Pending claims 4—7 depend, directly or indirectly, from cancelled claim 3. See App. Br. 11 (Claims App’x). In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner and Appellants should address this issue. Appeal 2017-006043 Application 12/878,612 Introduction Appellants describe their invention as relating to touch-sensitive devices, particularly those that rely on a capacitive coupling between a user’s finger or other touch implement and the touch device, with particular application to such devices that are capable of detecting multiple touches (from fingers and styli) applied to different portions of the touch device possible at the same time. Spec. 1:17—21 (Field of the Invention). Claim 1 is illustrative, shown here with a disputed limitation in italics'. 1. A touch sensitive system comprising: a touch panel comprising transparent capacitive sensing medium including a plurality of drive electrodes and a plurality of receive electrodes arranged to form a matrix and an insulating layer arranged between the plurality of drive electrodes and the plurality of receive electrodes, the matrix having a plurality of nodes defined by areas where the drive electrodes and the receive electrodes traverse one another; a stylus drive unit configured to provide a stylus drive signal to a stylus electrode; a stylus sense unit configured to generate stylus response signals from the stylus electrode, the stylus response signal comprising a differentiated representation of a sensing medium drive signal, the amplitude of the differentiated representation being responsive to the coupling capacitance between the stylus electrode and one of the plurality of drive electrodes, the stylus sense unit comprising receive electronics that are capable of resolving the location of a stylus tip relative to an unresolved axis; a touch panel drive unit configured to generate a touch panel drive signal and deliver the touch panel drive signal to the drive electrodes in the touch panel one at a time; a touch panel sense unit configured to generate, for each stylus drive signal delivered to the stylus electrode, touch panel 2 Appeal 2017-006043 Application 12/878,612 response signals for the plurality of receive electrodes in the touch panel, an amplitude of each of the response signals being responsive to the coupling capacitance at the associated receive electrode in the touch panel; a measurement unit configured to measure or receive input indicative of each of the amplitude of the stylus response signals and the amplitude of the touch panel response signals and to determine therefrom the position of the stylus electrode, if present, on the touch surface, wherein the touch sensitive system is configured to be switchable between distinct stylus receive and stylus drive modes, the operation of the stylus drive unit being associated with the stylus drive mode, and the operation of the stylus sense unit being associated with the stylus receive mode. App. Br. 10 (Claims App’x) (formatting adjusted). Rejections Claims 1, 2, 4—9, 11, 12, 14, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 2011/0122087 Al; May 26, 2011) and Westhues et al. (US 2012/0050207 Al; Mar. 1, 2012). Final Act. 4—12. Claims 10 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jang, Westhues, and Appellants’ admitted prior art (AAPA). Final Act. 12—13. Claims 15 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jang, Westhues, and Murakami et al. (US 5,923,320; July 13, 1999). Final Act. 13-14. Claims 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jang, Westhues, and Tagawa et al. (US 5,410,329; Apr. 25, 1995). Final Act. 14—15. 3 Appeal 2017-006043 Application 12/878,612 ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Jang teaches the disputed limitation of “wherein the touch sensitive system is configured to be switchable between distinct stylus receive and stylus drive modes, the operation of the stylus drive unit being associated with the stylus drive mode,” as recited. Final Act. 6 (citing Jang, Fig. 5) (emphasis omitted). Appellants argue the Examiner errs because “Jang is incompatible with switching between distinct stylus receive and drive mode[s]. Instead, Jang teaches that when an electric field sensor is included in an active stylus, the electric field sensor operates simultaneously with the electric field emitter.” App. Br. 6 (citing Jang || 91—93, Fig. 5); see also id. at 7 (explaining that in Jang’s disclosed embodiments, “the transmitting and receiving function are always active since the transmitted signal is dependent on the received signal” (additionally citing Jang 1137, Fig. 8)). Appellants further contend one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Jang to be switchable between distinct stylus drive and stylus receive modes because this would require changing the principle of operation of Jang. In particular, separating transmit and receive functions into distinct modes would not [be] compatible with Jang’s stylus in which the electric field sensor operates simultaneously with the electric field emitter. Id. at 7. The Examiner responds that in Jang, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “transmitting and receiving are [distinct] operations since they are different from each other.” Ans. 14. The Examiner finds that Jang’s disclosure of sequential driving of lines teaches distinct transmit and receive operations, because the sequential driving “means that the response signal 4 Appeal 2017-006043 Application 12/878,612 [is] sent after receiving the drive signal.” Id. at 15 (citing Jang | 52). The Examiner further finds that in Jang, after sensing a result from a drive signal, “a new signal [is] generated and then transmitted to the panel[, and] those [two] actions are [distinct] actions happening at different times and [are] distinctive since they are 2 different operations.” Id. (citing Jang || 90—96). The Examiner also finds transmitting and receiving with the active stylus in Jang uses a single electrode (antenna) and, therefore, “signals have to alternate between sensing and receiving” or else “the signals will collide in which case the data will be unreliable.” Id. at 15—16. Appellants reply that the Examiner is factually wrong, because sensing in Jang clearly takes place “when the driving signal is applied.” Reply Br. I3 (citing Jang || 90-93, 98—99, 118—19, Figs. 5, 6A, 7A); see also id. at 1—2 (additionally citing Jang || 64—65, 97, 116—17, Fig. 7B). We agree with Appellants. As a threshold matter, we disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation that because transmitting and receiving are distinct operations in Jang, they correspond to claim l’s “distinct stylus receive and stylus drive modes.” Claim 1 requires that “the touch sensitive system is configured to be switchable between distinct stylus receive and stylus drive modes” (emphasis added). Regardless that transmitting (driving) and receiving are distinct operations, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that claim 1 does not encompass a system in which receiving a signal from a stylus always occurs simultaneously with transmitting a corresponding drive 3 The Reply Brief does not have page numbers. We treat its four pages as if they were sequentially numbered 1^4. 5 Appeal 2017-006043 Application 12/878,612 signal to the stylus, because there is no switching between a receive mode and a drive mode in such a system. Cf. Reply Br. 3^4. We also agree with Appellants that Jang in fact discloses an active stylus that drives and senses simultaneously, i.e., that Jang teaches only a single mode that combines driving with receiving. See Reply Br. 1—2. The Examiner errs in finding sequential driving of the driving lines in the touch screen system of Jang necessitates separate drive and receive modes. The sequencing of drive lines is a separate issue from sensing a response while the stylus provides a drive signal. As points are sequentially processed during sequential line driving in Jang, there is simultaneous driving and measuring of a response to determine the effect of the stylus at each point. We also agree with Appellants that skilled artisans would have understood it is fundamental that simultaneous transmitting and receiving can use a single antenna. See Reply Br. 2—3. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 20, which includes commensurate limitations (see App. Br. 12—13 (Claims App’x)) and stands rejected on the same basis (see Final Act. 12). We also, accordingly, do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2 and 4—19. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4— 20 under § 103(a). REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation